FCC proposes network neutrality rules (and big exemptions)

The FCC unveiled its six network neutrality rules today, along with a pair of …

As expected, the FCC laid out its draft network neutrality rules at an open meeting today. Despite the partial dissent of the two Republican commissioners, the pro-neutrality faction has won a major rhetorical battle; even its toughest opponents sing the praises of a "free and open Internet."

The draft rules are short, taking up less than two pages of text. At their heart are the four existing "Internet freedoms" that the FCC approved back in 2005:

Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice

Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement

Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network

Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The proposed rules make the principles binding, but they also add two new items to the list: nondiscrimination and transparency.

A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner

A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

Exceptional rules

Are there exceptions? Of course there are, and the ways that the exceptions are put into practice will have a significant effect on US network design.

First, all six principles are subject to "reasonable network management." No one's sure what that means, but the FCC staff have now developed guidance that is far more helpful than the previous (nonexistent) guidance.

Network management is reasonable if it is used

To manage congestion on networks

To address harmful traffic (viruses, spam)

To block unlawful content (child porn)

To block unlawful transfers of content (copyright infringement)

For "other reasonable network management practices"

The ambiguity of that last item is striking, and we'll have to see what sorts of things the FCC allows in practice before understanding just how wide this exemption really is.

The second exemption to the rules is for "managed services," another hazy area. FCC staff are defining managed services as offerings that are provided over the same networks as regular Internet access but that "differ from broadband Internet access service in ways that suggest a different policy approach." This includes things like voice services and telemedicine, but it's obviously a pretty broad category, and the FCC is asking for guidance on how to define it.

It appears that the agency is looking for ways to let telcos and cable companies offer additional, prioritized services over a single line, things like analog and digital voice, cable TV, and low-latency connections for medical use.

The rules apply to every Internet connection, wired and wireless, though what is "reasonable" may vary by connection type and even by network speed. As Commissioner Michael Copps put it in his supporting remarks, "What is reasonable today might be unreasonable tomorrow—and vice versa" as networks expand.

There's nothing new here?

Chairman Genachowski pitched the move as evolutionary rather than revolutionary, noting that the FCC in the past (and under Republican leadership) had already adopted the four Internet principles, slapped network neutrality conditions on the AT&T/BellSouth merger, and made the decision to sanction Comcast.

And while he's willing to listen to everyone, people should know that "'anything goes' is not a serious argument" at the Genachowski-led FCC. He argued that proper rules are a spur to investment, not a barrier, and says that he remains fully aware of "the risk of unintended consequences." Hence, the rules are meant to be brief, and to be general, with several big exemptions so as not to bind the agency's hands in the future.

The three Democratic commissioners also called out the scariest rhetoric surrounding network neutrality rules. Mignon Clyburn singled out the parties that prefer "radioactive rhetoric" and said it might yield headlines but not good results with her. Copps bashed the "Chicken Littles running around proclaiming the sky's falling" and called for facts, not fear.

Even those who opposed the rules were limited in their criticism; both Robert McDowell and Meredith Baker applauded the process so far and the idea of the open Internet. Comcast's statement opened the same way: "We share and embrace the objective of an open Internet, as we always have." The cable lobby agrees, telling Ars, "To be clear, we regard this as a debate about means, not ends; we support a free and open Internet."

Everyone loves openness, but the two Republican commissioners worry that FCC rules aren't the way to get there, and both claim that the agency did not have the authority to make such rules.

In an odd twist, the Electronic Frontier Foundation agrees. Despite supporting neutrality, the group argues that "Congress has never given the FCC any authority to regulate the Internet for the purpose of ensuring net neutrality." (This is the basic argument being made now in federal court by Comcast.)

The danger is that such authority over the Internet might today be used for good, but "it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like). For example, it doesn't take much imagination to envision a future FCC 'Internet Decency Statement'… And it's also too easy to imagine an FCC 'Internet Lawful Use Policy,' created at the behest of the same entertainment lobby that has long been pressing the FCC to impose DRM on TV and radio, with ISPs required or encouraged to filter or otherwise monitor their users to ensure compliance."

But Genachowski is pushing ahead. Comments on the draft rules are due in January 2010, with reply comments due in March 2010; final rules could arrive by next summer.

Whatever one thinks of the draft rules, it remains encouraging to see the FCC doing things the "right way." Under predecessor Kevin Martin, a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" might be issued without containing the actual draft text of the rule—a fact that several commissioners noted. And Genachowski has the FCC blogging (even liveblogging the meeting), is overhauling the agency website, and has ditched the horrible RealPlayer streaming setup in favor of Flash video that actually works the first time. Kudos.

To assure net neutrality is alive and well the FCC should help create a free market for telecommunications. The FCC might take a stronger stand by changing spectrum auctions for example.

The FCC rules should encourage the buildout of networks (capex) and operation (opex) of networks in a way that allows open and free competition, by assuring more than one service provider exists on the public's (FCC auctioned) spectrum it manages for the U.S..

Competition in a free market economy (the definition of economic freedom), assures public benefits by encouraging the competition among providers. (This economic recession is the time for innovation) Imagine when telecommunications industry has multiple Internet Service providers operating over multiple infrastructure providers..

Any future 'sale' of the public's precious resource - spectrum - should be only with the rights of economic freedom and open competition rule. Open competition yields Net Neutrality today, and whatever the public wants tomorrow, without corporate lobbyists.

You could see an iPhone which works on multiple networks for example. Visual Voice Mail, ATT's single network innovation on the iPhone is not a reason to close a network to competition, for example.

AT&T is not alone in closing down competition. Comcast does not, for example, allow ISPs to operate a virtual network over the Comcast network. Verizon doesn't either.

Iphone, Google phone and other innovative device users could gain huge benefits if in fact, their cellphones were part of a open, competitive network, which they currently, are not. The monopolistic actions of network operators causes a reduction in competition, failing the public's desires, frustrating regulators and encouraging heavy lobbying in Congress and at the FCC.

As one commenter put it, the telecommunications regulation of the past many years demonstrates a kind of failure. Regulated monopolies, such as AT&T and Verizon enjoy highly non-competitive environments, by agreeing to have Congress and the FCC meddle in their business, for the right to keep the wireless cellphone market closed.

By opening spectrum to the public, we now have an incredibly profitable, diverse and public serving innovations. The WiFi economy is a wild boom for consumers. The Wireless Internet business is taking off globally, in an open competitive way, but, in the US, lobbyists continue to crush a free market by arguing that no new spectrum should be allocated to the free market.

Free markets serve *the public* and win profits for *innovators*. This economic freedom is the freedom many Americans believe is the American way. It enables the garage-shop innovator or the trillion dollar corporate megalith to create a breakthrough that propels economic diversity and rapid benefits to the public. Left to lobbists and lawyers, innovation, and the exciting economic activity around it is crushed.

Spectrum is networking, and this opening it, is a competitive force that drives open networking, with multiple competitors, delivering precisely what the market wants, and not, as one monopoly is proud to say it delivers, simply, "innovations in billing". The market wants innovations in services and faster, cheaper, more flexible networks mean better applications, more possibilities and possibly, the movement of the United States from Number 17 in the world for Internet Access to somewhere in the top 10, perhaps?

Imagine if high quality spectrum were made public, you'd be able to use your cellphone anywhere on multiple networks, not just within 100 feet, but within thousands of feet.

Competition benefits the public. Money drives all decisions in business and in Congress. The public movement toward and embrace of vendors who provide better services is a foundation of the American society. I applaud the FCC's stance on unfettered devices and attachments, as well as unfettered access to destinations on the Internet.

The FCC might consider extending those choices to transiting networks which use the Public's Spectrum - that which the FCC has leased to AT&T, Verizon and others.

Let's get back to competition over the airwaves the Public owns, the FCC manages and encourage rapid innovation, during this stressful economic time.

Product innovators will respond to the public's desires if they are allowed to use or create new networks using FCC managed, public spectrum.

Other posters pretty much summed up my thoughts, feelings, and view points when it comes to those who responded to my comment made yesterday so I will not address that any further.

However, no one talked more about this one so I will chime in.

quote:

Originally posted by slopoke:

quote:

Originally posted by Naame:

I understand. That is why it is important that all of us take the responsibility as citizens to do our research and fact checking before voting anyone into political office. Voting should never be taken lightly and it loses its power if people do not take it seriously beyond simply watching their favorite news network sometimes and visiting the polls once every 4 years. Never forget that we are the real government. Not our representatives. We are the best form of checks and balances that this country has to work with.

While I agree with the sentiment here, the reality is a little different. Due to the high cost of running a political campaign only candidates with corporate backing can hope to run. So, in essence, you and I really only get a choice between the AT&T candidate and the Comcast candidate without a "none of the above" option. Until we either enable the "none of the above" choice, with all the cost associated with it, or use tax dollars to underwrite all campaign spending (or both) then democracy in the USA is basically a sham.

I think that there are actually two subjects to talk about here. First, I want to say that I absolutely agree with you about the financial backing stuff although it doesn't always need to rely on corporate backing as much as you might think. Obama managed to get a lot more money from various organizations, universities, and a tremendous amount of small individual donations than most have ever dreamed of in the past. I'm not saying that there was an absence of corporate backing, but it was at least better than usual. Beyond that, you are absolutely correct. I hate how it takes millions to win a seat up in DC. It shouldn't be that way and it does harm democracy imo.

Second, tying into my thoughts above, this is just another reason why net neutrality is so important. The internet has heavily changed how campaigning works. It is a solution which is very cheap when you consider how many people it is capable of communicating with across the globe let alone from within the borders of the US. Without proper net neutrality laws, it will be the ISPs who are regulating the internet. Is there anything which exists to stop them from heavily dedicating bandwidth to candidates whom they have bought out while simultaneously slowing down other sites dedicated to candidates whose views lean towards the freedoms of the people rather than the interests of the ISPs? Even if they don't take it that far, you better believe they will make candidates pay a crap load for it simply because they can due to a heavy lack of competition. Do we really want to allow them to take away this cheap solution for any candidate to campaign and for the government to communicate to us? I certainly don't want that to happen. There is nothing good in that scenario for me.

Originally posted by jsl4980:Any government regulation is bad. Whether or not you like what they propose today you will hate something coming down the road. Future regulations will be attempts to control what data goes over the internet. Giving them a foot in the door is a bad thing.

Monopolies are also equally bad. You have a number of natural monopoliescurrently in existence that have the potential to fundementally undermineDemocracy by controlling the flow of information.

Originally posted by mathcreative:Wait I donn't understand how anything as changed. They still have the reasonable network management thing. Can't comcast still do what they did before under these new terms? Further more we granted with the fact that the FCC was never given the right to enforce network neutrality by congress. I don't really see any good news here. Someone please enlight me!

Well, I for one am delighted that the FCC hasn't flipped its wig and gone totally bananas... Sanity prevails, and that's reassuring, most definitely.

About the "network management" thing: it isn't physically or logistically or ideally possible to roll out an Internet network that nobody manages... Also, if you'll check, as far as I am concerned, Comcast never did anything worthy of attention. But, yes, it means the ISPs may still manage their networks--which is a good thing, because they know how to manage them far better than anyone else, surely including the FCC (Kudos to the FCC for acknowledging this fact, finally, and airing it in the open.)

quote:

* Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice

Maintains the status quo--note the world "legal".

quote:

* Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement

Again, a nod to the status quo.

quote:

* Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network

Status quo, as the definition of "devices that harm the network" will be an ISP's management decision.

quote:

* Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Yawn...status quo, again.

quote:

The proposed rules make the principles binding, but they also add two new items to the list: nondiscrimination and transparency.

* A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner

Status quo, and key word being "lawful." I would imagine this means that unlawful Bit Torrent content may be discriminated against, as well as any other unlawful "content, applications, and services."

quote:

* A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

Another prudent restatement of that which is already in play from most ISPs.

quote:

First, all six principles are subject to "reasonable network management." No one's sure what that means, but the FCC staff have now developed guidance that is far more helpful than the previous (nonexistent) guidance.

The ambiguity of that last item is striking, and we'll have to see what sorts of things the FCC allows in practice before understanding just how wide this exemption really is.

Key word here is "reasonable." The FCC is wisely delegating the task of Internet network management to the ISPs who roll out the networks and thankfully isn't seeking to impose some bizarre political scheme completely divorced from the reality of actually running and managing a robust Internet network. The FCC is announcing that it has no intention of trying to usurp the job of network management from the ISPs who have rolled out their various networks. It's always nice to see common sense validated.

What "good news" were you expecting, exactly? It's difficult to know what people disappointed with this might expect, aside from laundry lists of the ridiculous and impossible. This all goes back to the fact that as a concept everybody has a somewhat different take on "net neutrality" in terms of what it is supposed to be. These rules at last restore some sanity.

Now all we have to do is sit back and wait on the class-action lawyers to start inventing all sorts of pretexts for suits against ISPs alleged to have "run afoul" of these rules in some obscure fashion. After that, we can all sit back and see how much more our Internet services will cost us a result. The one positive thing here that I see is that at least the FCC hasn't given the ambulance chasers much to sink their teeth into.

Originally posted by jsl4980:Any government regulation is bad. Whether or not you like what they propose today you will hate something coming down the road. Future regulations will be attempts to control what data goes over the internet. Giving them a foot in the door is a bad thing.

Monopolies are also equally bad. You have a number of natural monopoliescurrently in existence that have the potential to fundementally undermineDemocracy by controlling the flow of information.

Italy right now is a pretty good demonstration of that problem.

No to mention that this "foot in the door" that he speaks of has already existed for a while now. The new rules are bringing more power to the people in this case. Not less.

Should the government try to impose new rules or amendments later down the road which are really bad then they should be opposed by the people later down the road, but not now.

* Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice * Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement * Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network * Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

The proposed rules make the principles binding, but they also add two new items to the list: nondiscrimination and transparency.

* A provider of broadband Internet access service must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner * A provider of broadband Internet access service must disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking

is NOT network neutrality. The whole point was to not monitor the connections, not give preference to traffic, because you only can monitor the traffic on your pipes and most traffic goes over several networks in the course on one transaction.

Originally posted by vasdrakken:is NOT network neutrality. The whole point was to not monitor the connections, not give preference to traffic, because you only can monitor the traffic on your pipes and most traffic goes over several networks in the course on one transaction.

Net Neutrality was never intended to disallow ISPs to monitor their traffic and connections. You are correct about traffic preference though provided that the traffic is determined to be both legal and to not interfere with "law enforcement, public safety, and national security authorities" to do their job which makes sense.

That is why it is important that all of us take the responsibility as citizens to do our research and fact checking before voting anyone into political office. Voting should never be taken lightly and it loses its power if people do not take it seriously beyond simply watching their favorite news network sometimes and visiting the polls once every 4 years.

Voting involves visiting the polls once every year (twice if you vote in primaries). Unless you're suggesting Americans get more involved than that even.

A big problem is that your votes do not count. There should be a system in which 10% of the votes = 10% of the seats. This would be a more populist system (government more closely represents the will of the people) which itself carries certain dangers. Our current majority rules system gives too much power to incumbents. The gerrymandering system gives too much power to them, too.

When you vote there are two basic choices: The leading candidate or the second place candidate. A vote for any other candidate is a wasted vote.